EPA Overhaul Sparks Debate: Science or Politics?

In a controversial move, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revealed plans on May 2 to reduce its budget by $300 million for the 2026 fiscal year, significantly cut its workforce, and disband its Office of Research and Development. The sweeping reorganization aligns with directives from President Donald Trump’s executive orders, aiming to scale back regulatory processes and increase domestic energy production.

EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin explained in a public address that the overhaul is meant to better position the agency to fulfill its primary mission—protecting human health and the environment—while also supporting the administration’s economic goals. These include boosting American energy, revitalizing manufacturing, and reducing costs for consumers through streamlined permitting processes.

One of the most notable aspects of the plan is the reduction of EPA staff to levels not seen since the 1980s, during President Ronald Reagan’s administration. At that time, the agency was led by a controversial administrator critical of environmental regulation. Zeldin noted that EPA staffing would be reduced from over 15,100 in 2024 to a figure similar to the 11,400 employees it had in 1984.

The changes have provoked strong criticism from environmental advocates and scientific organizations. The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) warned that slashing staff and restructuring the agency in a way that merges science with politics could compromise scientific integrity. They fear that researchers will be pressured to align with political agendas instead of relying on objective evidence.

In addition to dissolving the Office of Research and Development, the EPA will eliminate the Office of Science and Technology, which played a key role in shaping water policy and scientific guidelines. Scientific responsibilities will be distributed across new and existing offices, such as a newly created Office of Applied Science, which will reflect the priorities of politically appointed leaders.

As part of the transition, about 1,500 research staff have been informed they must reapply for approximately 400 new positions in different departments. The EPA has given employees until May 5 to accept a deferred resignation if they are not reassigned, raising concerns over the fate of those not selected for new roles.

Further restructuring includes the establishment of the Office of State Air Partnerships, designed to collaborate with state agencies on air quality permitting. Meanwhile, the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention will see a boost with 130 new roles to address a growing backlog of over 500 new chemicals and more than 12,000 pesticides awaiting review.

Despite assurances from Zeldin that the changes are meant to improve efficiency and uphold EPA’s mission, critics remain concerned. Chitra Kumar of the UCS’s Climate and Clean Energy Program cautioned that dismantling the scientific core of the agency and making scientists politically accountable could turn the EPA from a respected research institution into a tool of political influence.